Mayday PAC a friendly critique

Mayday PAC is a SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs. It has already raised 5 million dollars and plans on picking 5 congressional districts in which to support pro campaign finance reform candidates during the 2014 elections.While I am excited and supportive of Mayday PACs efforts I have some constructive criticism to offer.The intro video on mayday.us mentions the Climate change issue. A gallup poll has shown that that 65 percent of conservatives are ” cool skeptics” which the poll defines as people who are not worried about global warming much or at all.If you are truly seeking conservative donations and support you should consider removing references to global warming from your campaigns media.

Also its is unclear whether you’re intervention in the 5 pilot campaigns will be offensive(attacking candidates who are anti reform) or defensive (supporting pro reform candidates).I would suggest the the most effective strategy is to be on the offensive and run attack ads against anti reform candidates.Unions have tried the defensive approach donating and volunteering for pro reform candidates in general elections.They helped Democrats achieve a 60 vote majority in the senate and what did they get in return?Nothing.Had the handful of Democrats who opposed the Employee Free Choice Act known that any form of obstruction would guarantee that they would face a union backed candidate and attacks in the democratic primary history might have turned out differently.The most optimal arena for this offensive operation is during party primaries.If you intervene in primaries you will have a bigger bang for your buck as there is less competing money than in the general election.Also lower turnout is associated with primaries. In a low turnout primary a focused GOTV effort that is even modestly effective could produce the desired outcome.Another benefit of intervening in primaries is you will be better able to maintain the partisan neutrality of your organization’s operations by attacking anti reform Democrats and Republicans.

I don’t see anything other than feel good, back slapping, corporate types coming out of there. We need fundamental reforms, not piecemail ones. Not to mention once elected, what is the accountability mechanism for these now incumbents who will have greater access to the spoils of corporate and special interest dollars?

I feel this way about the Bloomberg anti-NRA effort as well. It seems that all Bloomberg is doing is targeting pro-NRA Democrats, which doesn’t actually affect the outcome of national gun legislation on a wide scale. Instead, by providing the DNC itself with an arm of money equivalent to the NRA’s assistance to the GOP-that is how you could really take the fight to them. Make the Senate Dem majority filibuster proof. Of course, the Bloomberg group is more desperate for splasy Morning Joe Acela crowd love than actual policy implementation.

This smacks of that as well. A far better effort would be to actually get the kind of money that labor, Emily’s List, and other groups have, and really make a clear cut Norquist style pledge not to take soft money, to vote against any loopholes and to vote for any kind of reform, and really model the approach off that right wing parasite-which as much as we hate their means and ends-has clearly infected the host quite thoroughly. If the DNC and purple state Republicans could get infected similarly-it could be a real movement. Otherwise, five candidates aren’t worth a hill o’beans in modern Washington. Better to pressure incumbents towards substantial reforms that would solve the problem.

1. Mark McKinnon is on the board of the MayDay Pac. Lessig has a distinct tendency to play to the Right, from which he came, and ignore anything Left of the Clintons. Both of them appeal to a mythical middle that is way farther Right than anything I think is close to the center of reality. They believe in the children’s story of TipnRonnie drinking scotch together after a hard day of legislating (and screwing the middle class from different directions).

2. The focus is on elections and politicians exclusively rather than citizens and change from the grassroots on up in the social/economic/political culture. Even if MayDay Pac is successful, it is still electing politicians, not changing the ground beneath them.

3. Has Lessig et alia studied the history of public funding of elections on a state by state basis? Not sure. Do they understand what happened in MA with a successful referendum but a recalcitrant State House? Do they understand what happened in Maine and how public funding is not a panacea? Or that ANY campaign legislation will be routed around or even struck down given the set of Supremes we currently have?

4. Absolutely no focus on the media’s role in election funding. Most of the money raised goes to TV and radio and print advertising. This is a major cash cow for media companies. How can they cover the issue fairly when they stand to lose or gain so much? How can you talk about the 1% without talking about the role of media in the process?

I like Larry Lessig and have met him a couple of times, exchanged emails a couple of times but I also think he is, in some ways, extremely naive. He is a great teacher but he has huge blind spots, some of which I hope to have illuminated above.

Abramoff has made a post-prison career for himself as an anti-election corruption crusader, like a caught hacker becoming a corporate security consultant. I would prefer it if he would crawl away and never show his face in public again but it may be that his conversion is real.

No Labels and America’s Elect are both odious scams for political consultants in my opinion and both include Mark McKinnon.

We must ban the use of tear gas by law enforcement. Tear gas is an indiscriminate weapon that was banned in warfare nearly 100 years ago. It is insane that we allow police to use it against protestors today.